Maybe a topic can be rated based on the average of the posts inside it? A topic with lots of +posts is rated good or better. A topic with lots of -posts is rated negative, and anything else is normal.

I like this. In general I also do not believe that following a thread means it's actually interesting by itself. When the thread makes for good discussion, I believe people tend to just upvote the OP. Rating the thread based on the average of votes and adding that just to mark the thread instead of adding that reputation to the OP seems like a good idea.

I really like the fact that a pool was opened to see how people generally act. This kind of thing is what makes gd.net a good place to be.

I would think that the most common use is because the topic has value.

Perhaps we should run a poll and see if we can get some data on that? It's a nice idea, but unless we're hearing from a vocal minority it seems like this might be a flawed assumption. I know I personally don't follow a topic because it's valuable -- I use browser bookmarks for that so that I can refer to them from off-site, and I up-vote individual posts to show my appreciation.

I follow threads whenever I want to make 100% sure I don't miss replies. This usually means I made the thread and I was asking for something important I need. Otherwise I don't bother.

Don't pay much attention to "the hedgehog" in my nick, it's just because "Sik" was already taken =/ By the way, Sik is pronounced like seek, not like sick.

That would be because no one knows where it is.I have seen a few posts highlighted as answers but never knew how they got there. There never was a button labelled for that so I first considered post ratings as a factor, but that was soon debunked in topics where the answer had a rating of 4 where other posts had 11 or so.Next I guessed it only showed up for people with a certain rating. Now that I am in the top 25 I have a feeling that is not the case.So I figured it must be a moderator-only thing.

If that feature is still enabled, then it is only enabled for moderators, because I am looking at other posts right now for it and it is not there nor has it ever been. I have never seen that feature and have always wondered how posts got highlighted as the “answer” for a topic.

Speaking of being in the top 25, the Top Members list is very wrong.As of writing, my rating is 2,538 and it shows me as #17, but #18 is Ashaman73, with a rating of 3,057.ApochPiQ should be #3 but is listed as #6, etc.

It was only made available to moderators and staff for testing purposes, with the intention that we would later roll it out to members with particularly high reputation scores if it seemed successful, but it now looks like we're more likely to simply remove it at least for the time being.

Speaking of being in the top 25, the Top Members list is very wrong.

I think the list is updated on a regular time interval (perhaps daily or weekly) rather than per-view, which may account for some discrepancy, but again that's something Mike would have more information on and can probably more accurately determine whether it's working as intended or needs to be fixed. Thanks for the report!

Speaking of being in the top 25, the Top Members list is very wrong.As of writing, my rating is 2,538 and it shows me as #17, but #18 is Ashaman73, with a rating of 3,057.ApochPiQ should be #3 but is listed as #6, etc.

I'm not certain why this is happening.. it's something I need to look into. This doesn't happen all the time and eventually it gets ironed out typically so something is updating member scores incorrectly temporarily. The daemon that updates users ratings is running constantly, but takes a while to cycle through all the users. It has to recrunch everyone's yearly, quarterly, monthly, and weekly scores as well as their overall scores into a cached format that is very quick to access.

I look at it this way: Many first timers will not return to post again so it does not really matter that they get a +5. Giving them a +5 might be what some people need as a kind of ego boast and encouragement to continue being involved in the community. If they don't deserve a +5, then view yourselves as the generous and benevolent leaders which you are - a boast to your egos, not that you need it.

What is a few points going to matter in the long term? Feel free to be generous.

Clinton

Personal life and your private thoughts always effect your career. Research is the intellectual backbone of game development and the first order. Version Control is crucial for full management of applications and software. The better the workflow pipeline, then the greater the potential output for a quality game. Completing projects is the last but finest order.

I look at it this way: Many first timers will not return to post again so it does not really matter that they get a +5. Giving them a +5 might be what some people need as a kind of ego boast and encouragement to continue being involved in the community. If they don't deserve a +5, then view yourselves as the generous and benevolent leaders which you are - a boast to your egos, not that you need it.

What is a few points going to matter in the long term? Feel free to be generous.

Clinton

I doubt many new members discover the reputation system and understand its purpose right away, though. I don't think they would have even noticed the extra points, though the new reputation notifications might change that.

“If I understand the standard right it is legal and safe to do this but the resulting value could be anything.”

In a very competitive world - things competing for everybody's attention - I feel that the +5 credit is going to be noticed and appreciated by some. In the business world, the more successful the enterprise then the more the organization is looking for cumulative attractions. The sum of many very small attractions is part of the overall synergy which every community needs including this one. The cost is nothing but will stroke the right ego once in a while - a win-win tactic. This is Marketing 101.

Clinton

Personal life and your private thoughts always effect your career. Research is the intellectual backbone of game development and the first order. Version Control is crucial for full management of applications and software. The better the workflow pipeline, then the greater the potential output for a quality game. Completing projects is the last but finest order.

In a very competitive world - things competing for everybody's attention - I feel that the +5 credit is going to be noticed and appreciated by some. In the business world, the more successful the enterprise then the more the organization is looking for cumulative attractions. The sum of many very small attractions is part of the overall synergy which every community needs including this one. The cost is nothing but will stroke the right ego once in a while - a win-win tactic. This is Marketing 101.

Clinton

I guess it's your perspective. To me the reputation system is not to stroke ego nor a marketing tactic, but I can see why some people would see it this way. I don't know much about marketing and do not wish to turn this thread into an argument war. To each his own.

“If I understand the standard right it is legal and safe to do this but the resulting value could be anything.”

What is a few points going to matter in the long term? Feel free to be generous.

The issue in this case is that some longer term members are being turned off from using a potentially useful feature -- the "follow topic" feature -- because they don't want to give points to others who they don't feel deserve them. Encouraging beginners is great, but we don't want to do it at the expense of making life more difficult for the more experienced members who are able to answer beginner's questions.

We do have some rewards specifically to encourage new members -- they are given +100 for signing up, and earn +1/day simply for logging in.

In a very competitive world - things competing for everybody's attention - I feel that the +5 credit is going to be noticed and appreciated by some. In the business world, the more successful the enterprise then the more the organization is looking for cumulative attractions. The sum of many very small attractions is part of the overall synergy which every community needs including this one. The cost is nothing but will stroke the right ego once in a while - a win-win tactic. This is Marketing 101.

Clinton

I guess it's your perspective. To me the reputation system is not to stroke ego nor a marketing tactic, but I can see why some people would see it this way. I don't know much about marketing and do not wish to turn this thread into an argument war. To each his own.

Hey, I respect your difference of opinion.

I am totally convinced that the reputation system can have several purposes and accompaning advantages for staff who are willing - "Where there is a will, there is a way."

Yes, that is true: "To each his own", but the perspective of high achievement leaders is to advance the impression of personal generosity as well as organization generosity. It is a highly beneficial way of operating which blesses everybody. Of course this must be sincere benevolence and not contrived, so if staff is not willing then I would recommend that they follow their will rather than faking it and elliminate the generous +5 gift.

I merely wish to bring matters to higher consciousness.

Clinton

Personal life and your private thoughts always effect your career. Research is the intellectual backbone of game development and the first order. Version Control is crucial for full management of applications and software. The better the workflow pipeline, then the greater the potential output for a quality game. Completing projects is the last but finest order.

What is a few points going to matter in the long term? Feel free to be generous.

The issue in this case is that some longer term members are being turned off from using a potentially useful feature -- the "follow topic" feature -- because they don't want to give points to others who they don't feel deserve them. Encouraging beginners is great, but we don't want to do it at the expense of making life more difficult for the more experienced members who are able to answer beginner's questions.

We do have some rewards specifically to encourage new members -- they are given +100 for signing up, and earn +1/day simply for logging in.

jbadams,

I understand the conscience aspect of this. How can we expect people to vote against their principles?

On the other hand, do you really want to yield to the pressures in the world, being as it is turning into "meritocracy" more each day, to systematically discourage personal generosity? The +100 for signing and +1 for logging is systematic whereas the +5 for following is more personal.

A strong leader who has the final say could agree with me and say that personal generosity will be encouraged here in the +5 for following a topic and long term members are being asked to consider it a matter of benevolence and not merit.

Whatever is decided will be supported by me, but I tried to elevate standards here.

Clinton

Personal life and your private thoughts always effect your career. Research is the intellectual backbone of game development and the first order. Version Control is crucial for full management of applications and software. The better the workflow pipeline, then the greater the potential output for a quality game. Completing projects is the last but finest order.

What is a few points going to matter in the long term? Feel free to be generous.

I am very generous with the points I give out... but it's not generosity when I don't get to choose whether I give it or not.

On the other hand, do you really want to yield to the pressures in the world, being as it is turning into "meritocracy" more each day, to systematically discourage personal generosity? The +100 for signing and +1 for logging is systematic whereas the +5 for following is more personal.A strong leader who has the final say could agree with me and say that personal generosity will be encouraged here in the +5 for following a topic and long term members are being asked to consider it a matter of benevolence and not merit.

Nothing is personal if I don't personally choose to give it.

I don't mind giving people +5. I give people +4 very frequently. It's not a matter of "deserving" - the points I give are frequent and offered as encouragement to people trying to be friendly and helpful (which is the whole point of the rating system). But I do not want to give +5 to encourage the OP of a thread when the OP is engaging in behavior that is counter-productive to the long-term health of the community.

The rating system is about users being able to decide (since algorithms and AI cannot) what attitudes and interactions benefits the community as a whole, and to present a psychological "thumbs up" thank-you to the posters that we feel strengthen the community.

When a rating feature is *broken* however, is when I don't get to decide who gets to be "thanked", and my name is attached to it. "Servant of the Lord followed your topic. +5". The GameDev.net system is sending "thank yous" with my name attached to it, to users who I am not thanking or encouraging.

I'm fine with users getting points for logging in. I wouldn't be fine with it saying, "Servant of the Lord thanks you for visiting GameDev.net. +1 point".If every time I logged in, 10 random private messages were sent to people saying, "Servant of the Lord says thanks for being awesome!" - that may make the ten random people feel good, and it may seem personal, but it's be a flat out lie (I wasn't thanking anyone, and it wasn't personal), with my name attached to it.

I wish it *did* say, "Servant of the Lord upvoted your post. +3" when I upvote something, because that'd make my upvotes more personal (Instead it only shows a thread title without the name of the user who upvoted).But I only want people to be benefited from me when I choose to have them benefited by me, and I certainly don't want my name attached to it if it wasn't sent by me explicitly.

When a rating feature is *broken* however, is when I don't get to decide who gets to be "thanked", and my name is attached to it. "Servant of the Lord followed your topic. +5". The GameDev.net system is sending "thank yous" with my name attached to it, to users who I am not thanking or encouraging.

When a rating feature is *broken* however, is when I don't get to decide who gets to be "thanked", and my name is attached to it. "Servant of the Lord followed your topic. +5". The GameDev.net system is sending "thank yous" with my name attached to it, to users who I am not thanking or encouraging.

I would like the keep the system and atmosphere positive as much as we can so that's why I err on the side of positive personal interactions with people. In my mind if you see "Michael Tanczos followed your topic" that just means.. well, that I followed your topic. Following a topic gets a fixed point value reward. Does following a topic equal thanking a person? Is it better if I take the name off the event? Or.. do you also think it's more common that members are getting points they shouldn't than members are getting points they deserve?

do you also think it's more common that members are getting points they shouldn't

We've only had 32 members respond to the poll thus far, but the votes cast seem to suggest this is the case. "Keeping track of valuable topics" is the only listed reason where an OP would really deserve a rep boost for having their topic followed, and it's currently only the 5th most popular option out of 7 choices. It seems from the feedback people are posting that a lot of people are against giving these points when they don't mean to, and in some cases they're actually planning to stop using an otherwise useful site feature because of it.

I don't use the feature at all personally, favouring browser bookmarks and the "my content" page instead, but I originally would have assumed like you that it would usually be indicative of valuable or interesting content. Looking at the feedback we're getting however, it seems pretty clear that in the majority of instances that just isn't the case, and that there's some pretty strong feelings against giving undeserved points. I'm now in favour of removing the rep boost for a topic being followed.

Perhaps we could consider instead giving an extra boost if the original post of a topic reaches a certain threshold value of say +5, or +10?

When a rating feature is *broken* however, is when I don't get to decide who gets to be "thanked", and my name is attached to it. "Servant of the Lord followed your topic. +5". The GameDev.net system is sending "thank yous" with my name attached to it, to users who I am not thanking or encouraging.

I would like the keep the system and atmosphere positive as much as we can so that's why I err on the side of positive personal interactions with people. In my mind if you see "Michael Tanczos followed your topic" that just means.. well, that I followed your topic. Following a topic gets a fixed point value reward. Does following a topic equal thanking a person?

Upvoting equals thanking, following does not equal thanking - but following gives upvotes, and upvotes equals thanking.If it has my name attached, and you get points, then it implies that I gave those points. If you said, "Servant of the Lord followed your topic" but didn't give any points, it wouldn't be thanking, and wouldn't be a problem - even with my name attached. It's name attached + points attached together that means I explicitly thanked you. My name on its own just means I explicitly followed you.

I would be happy for explicit post upvotes to have my name attached (which it doesn't currently): "Servant of the Lord upvoted [your post]. +3". It'd make upvotes even more impactful psychologically and much more personal.

It's definitely not a big deal, and if the +5 is left as it is it won't be catastrophic. It's just been a (very minor) personal annoyance that I've noticed multiple times over the past several months that finally I had to comment on. Whether the system actually changes or not, I don't particularly care (I'm sure GameDev.net has more important things to work on) - just as long as I've voiced my opinion about it so the staff is aware of it and have the opportunity to fix it if they choose to (you can't address unvoiced complaints if you wanted to).

Is it better if I take the name off the event?

I'm fine with the name if you add a checkbox when following giving me the option to back out of the +5.

I don't care if it's checked by default (and it probably should be checked by default since the average user doesn't bother rating). Maybe in your user control panel, have an option to check/uncheck it by default - but I wouldn't care either way, just as long as I can uncheck it when I need to manually follow.

Also, if I could explicitly uprate the OP +5 for a valuable thread, even after auto-following, that would be nice also. Sure, I could +3 the OP's post, but I'd forget to do that (and other users won't know they should do that) unless there was a "Mark thread as valuable" next to the "Follow this topic" button.

Or.. do you also think it's more common that members are getting points they shouldn't than members are getting points they deserve?

Is this thread above-average in value compared to the rest of the site, that the OP should receive +5 for it? You gave him that +5.The average value of threads on this forum is amazingly high. +5 points should go to above average.

Sometimes a user should get the +5, but in my personal usage, I follow threads that aren't yet valuable, but have the potential to later be. This one didn't meet that potential. He got +5 anyway. Threads that are already valuable, I usually post in, which auto-follows, which doesn't get the OP anything.

So I suppose it varies from how a user uses following. But why should auto-following be different? Maybe a user should get an automatic +5 for every 10 posts a thread receives. Non-lounge threads probably don't go much beyond 15 unless they are valuable and interesting (I'm guessing).An OP should get +5 * ((postsInThread - 5) / 10). So +5 at 15 posts, another +5 at 25 posts, another +5 at 35 posts, and so on.

We've only had 32 members respond to the poll thus far, but the votes cast seem to suggest this is the case.

Well in that poll 4 of the 7 choices are implications that there is something meaningful about the topic worth revisiting. That was the point of voting up the topic, to imply that the author created a thread that is somehow interesting or worthwhile. For a person to follow it even to reply later has meaning. You don't do that with threads you don't care about being involved with. Now if people used it more for moderation that would be totally different.

Also it's +3 now.. which is equal to one upvote (but isn't an upvote). The points count towards the "Author" category as well, which isn't based out of their knowledge of anything but their contributions to the community. By comparison, you can earn up to 150 points for writing articles vs 3 points for creating a post that gets followers.

I guess what we are looking for is implicit ways of rating vs purely explicit.. I know we have upvotes, but following with an upvote box available to me is the same as just simply upvoting the topic.